FILE – In this Friday, Jan. 20, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump talks with former President Barack Obama on Capitol Hill in Washington, prior to Obama's departure to Andrews Air Force Base, Md. (Rob Carr/Pool Photo via AP, File).
The DOJ is blasting an "illogical" federal lawsuit filed against Donald Trump in his official capacity, identifying serious "problems" with the complaint that could portend a straightforward dismissal on standing grounds.
In a memorandum of law submitted Tuesday, the DOJ asked U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, a Trump appointee, to throw the complaint out for relying on "newfangled theories meant for this President alone[.]"
"Plaintiffs come to this Court seeking the extraordinary: equitable relief against a sitting President. One would imagine, given such an ask, that Plaintiffs would be armed with an airtight case. Instead, Plaintiffs flunk bedrock standing requirements and put forward a constitutional theory that, if true, means George Washington openly violated the Constitution only a few years after presiding over its drafting. And not only Washington, but also Jefferson, Madison, Reagan, and other presidents," the DOJ said, later mentioning former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden by name.
Dunn's Overtown Farm, a nonprofit farm and market in Miami co-founded by historian and psychology professor Marvin Dunn, brought the lawsuit in May, alleging Florida Republicans gave away $300 million worth of Miami property to build a "library" that is, according to Trump, "most likely going to be a hotel[.]"
The plaintiffs said the judge should respond by declaring "null and void" the "land transaction that resulted in the Domestic Emoluments Clause violation."
To try to establish standing, individual plaintiffs who claimed they can see the so-called "MDC parcel" from where they live joined the lawsuit. So did Carmen Salcedo, a Miami Dade College student and "mentee" of Dunn's who claimed she "has an interest in her state-operated college making decisions that benefit her and her education, rather than decisions that line the pockets of President Trump at the expense of students."
"With respect to the receipt of unlawful emoluments, the Clause prohibits the President from receiving emoluments directly or constructively, through persons such as his immediate family members or corporate entities that he controls formally or informally," the suit said, noting that Eric Trump is one of three named trustees, but the president is not.
The DOJ has countered that the lawsuit has little to no chance of surviving, whether for "clear deficiencies" on the merits or for a complete lack of standing to sue.
If the lawsuit's domestic emoluments theory were accepted, the government said, then that would mean former presidents Obama and Biden violated the Constitution by virtue of owning "U.S. Treasury notes and bills during their tenure" and accruing interest "from the United States" in office.
"No court has ever issued relief against a President regarding any claim arising from the Domestic Emoluments Clause. This Court should not be the first. Dismissal is required," the memo said, later emphasizing that the land was given to the Trump Library Foundation — not to Trump himself and not by an act of the president: "Plaintiffs do not allege with any specificity how the President was involved in this transaction in his official capacity."
Noting that "guesswork," speculation, and assumptions are "not the stuff of which standing is made," the DOJ said there's no plausible claim the land transfer was "received" by Trump himself.
"Plaintiffs' theory fails for the basic reason that alleged benefits accruing to the President's private commercial interests—unrelated to any official act—are not 'Emoluments' within the meaning of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Text, context, and history prove as much," the filing said.
With no official act to block, that leaves the plaintiffs with "only the bare accusation that 'President Trump will monetize the land,'" the DOJ said.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments